Eric Mazur - Edinburgh 2011

653 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
653
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
20
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eric Mazur - Edinburgh 2011

  1. 1. Confessions of a converted lecturerThe University of EdinburghEdinburgh, UK, April 1, 2011
  2. 2. My messageshift focus from “teaching” to helping students learn
  3. 3. Outline• Education
  4. 4. Outline• Education• Peer Instruction
  5. 5. Outline• Education• Peer Instruction• Results
  6. 6. Education
  7. 7. Educationlectures focus on delivery of information
  8. 8. Educationeducation is not just information transfer 25 1990 20 FCI pretest 15 count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  9. 9. Educationeducation is not just information transfer 25 1990 20 FCI posttest 15 count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  10. 10. Educationeducation is not just information transfer 25 1990 20 combined 15 count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  11. 11. Educationchange in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 80 1990 combined 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)
  12. 12. Educationchange in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 80 1990 combined 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)
  13. 13. Educationchange in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 80 pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)
  14. 14. Education change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 80 pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  15. 15. Education only one quarter of maximum gain realized change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 1. 00 Sf – Si 80 g= 1 – Si pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 0.23 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  16. 16. Educationnot transfer but assimilation of information is key
  17. 17. Educationconventional problems misleading 12 V 4 2 Q P H 6 8V
  18. 18. Education conventional problems misleadingCalculate: 12 V(a) current in 2-W resistor 4(b) potential difference 2 P Q between P and Q 6 H 8V
  19. 19. Educationare the basic principles understood? A B C H S
  20. 20. Education are the basic principles understood?When S is closed, what happens to:(a) intensities of A and B? A B C(b) intensity of C?(c) current through battery? H S(d) potential difference across A, B, and C?(e) the total power dissipated?
  21. 21. Education conventional conceptual 80 80 60 60count count 40 40 20 20 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 score score
  22. 22. Education conventional conceptual 80 80 average 6.9 average 4.9 60 60count count 40 40 20 20 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 score score
  23. 23. Educationconceptual problem 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 conventional problem
  24. 24. Educationconceptual problem 100 80 9% 60 52% 40 39% 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 conventional problem
  25. 25. So what should we do?
  26. 26. Peer InstructionGive students more responsibility for gathering information…
  27. 27. Peer InstructionGive students more responsibility for gathering information… so we can better help them assimilate it.
  28. 28. Peer InstructionMain features:• pre-class reading• in-class: depth, not ‘coverage’• ConcepTests
  29. 29. Peer InstructionConcepTest:1. Question2. Thinking3. Individual answer4. Peer discussion5. Revised/Group answer6. Explanation
  30. 30. Resultsis it any good?
  31. 31. Results first year of implementing PI 25 1991 20 FCI pretest 15count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  32. 32. Results first year of implementing PI 25 1991 20 FCI posttest 15count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  33. 33. Results first year of implementing PI 25 1991 20 combined 15count 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 score
  34. 34. Resultschange in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 1. 00 Sf – Si 80 g= 1 – Si pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 0.23 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)
  35. 35. Resultschange in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 1. 00 Sf – Si 80 g= 1 – Si pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 0.23 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)
  36. 36. Results change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 1. 00 Sf – Si 80 g= 1 – Si pe 60 rfe ct sc or 40 e 0.23 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  37. 37. Results change in score, Sf – Si (%) 100 1. 00 Sf – Si 80 g= 1 – Si pe 60 rfe ct 0.48 sc or 40 e 0.23 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 initial score, Si (%)R.R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998)
  38. 38. Resultswhat about problem solving?
  39. 39. Results 25 1985 20 exam scores 15count 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 exam score (%)
  40. 40. Results 25 1991 20 exam scores 15count 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 exam score (%)
  41. 41. Results 25 1985/91 20 exam scores 15count 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 exam score (%)
  42. 42. SummarySo better understanding leads to betterproblem solving!
  43. 43. SummarySo better understanding leads to betterproblem solving!(but “good” problem solving doesn’t alwaysindicate understanding!)
  44. 44. SummaryTraditional indicators of success misleading
  45. 45. SummaryTraditional indicators of success misleadingEducation is no longer about information
  46. 46. Many thanks to: Universidad de Chile and MECESUP Project UCH0808Learning Technologies Interactive and Turning Technologies Funding: National Science Foundation for a copy of this presentation: http://mazur-www.harvard.edu Follow me! eric_mazur
  47. 47. Funding: National Science Foundation for a copy of this presentation:http://mazur-www.harvard.edu Follow me! eric_mazur

×